When Walther Nernst passed away in 1942, Albert Einstein dedicated one of his "thoughts about difficult years" to him, which may be summarized as follows [
1]
:

"The late Walther Nernst was one of the the most eminent and interesting scientists with whom I came into contact. His scientific instinct was truly amazing - apart from a masterly acquaintance with a vast amount of facts that he could always readily bring to mind, he also possessed a rare command of methods and experimental findings which he excelled in ... As long as his egocentric weakness did not come into play, he demonstrated an objectivity that was seldom to be found, an infallible sense for the essential, and a genuine thirst for knowledge of the profound interrelations that exist in nature. This, along with an unusual creative productivity, formed the basis of the considerable influence that he exercised upon scientific life in the first thirty years of the century. ... After Arrhenius, Ostwald and Van't Hoff, he was the last of a scientific dynasty" etc. etc.

After listing his various merits in the fields of physics and physical chemistry, Einstein concluded as follows:

"As a scientist Nernst did not limit himself to one field. His healthy common sense successfully involved him in all the spheres of practical life, and any conversation held with him always cast light on something of interest. What distinguished him from almost all of his fellow countrymen was his remarkable lack of prejudice. He displayed neither nationalist nor militarist tendencies. He judged people and things almost exclusively through their direct success, and not through social or ethical ideals … yet he was also interested in literature and had a sense of humour that can rarely be found in people involved in such a quantity of work. His personality was most original, indeed I have never met anyone else who resembled him at all in any way."

It would unfortunately appear, however, that a man so talented in scientific intuition and with a rare sense of humor became overwhelmed by an "egocentric weakness" after 1930.

One might suppose that it was consequently out of respect for Nernst, that in the obituary that Einstein wrote only those works "that were unspoilt by his egocentric weakness" were widely quoted, the "spoilt" ones were mercifully ignored.

Little research is needed to determine which of the works Einstein would have considered "the most spoilt of them all".

It would in fact have been a paper written in 1937 entitled "Weitere Prufung der Annahme eines stationaren Zustandes im Weltall. Mit 2 Abbildungen" (Further Tests regarding the Hypothesis of there being a Stationary State in the Universe. With 2 Illustrations.) [
2]
.

Here Nernst did in fact go into a cosmology completely ignoring, as irrelevant to his subject, the entire Theory of Relativity, both Special and General, indicating that its cosmological implications, the Big Bang and the expanding universe, were pure fantasy, so he had obviously never considered them of any importance.

If he saw fit to refuse them it was only because he had come across a brilliant "Weitere Prufung" of their inconsistency.

Let us consider things in more detail.

Relativistic Interpretation of Redshift

From 1912 onwards Slipher made the first observations regarding systematic shift in the spectra of the nearest galaxies.

Although the first one, Andromeda, was a blue shift, redshift were soon to predominate in the list he had compiled by 1925 [
3]
.

In 1929 Hubble confirmed these observations in more detail, establishing a "roughly linear" relation between redshifts and galactic distances [
4]
.

In the same year, and in the same journal, Zwicky [
5]
published a first collection of possible interpretations of this "curious phenomenon", stressing the following: a) that redshift was independent of the frequency; b) that "no appreciable absorption or scattering of light could be related to the above shift of spectral lines towards red".

In 1931 Hubble and Humason established that the redshift-distance relation was quantifiable in a "clearly linear" law [
6]
.

In 1935 Hubble and Tolman [
7]
finally decided to assume the following standpoint: redshift was to be interpreted within the field of relativistic cosmology.

"The methods of investigating the nature of the nebular redshift is to be split into two parts. In the first one the actual Universe is represented by a homogeneous expanding model obeying the relativistic laws of gravitation … In this hypothesis redshift is a Doppler effect. In the second part, redshift is analysed in the static Einstein model of the universe".

Obviously, in the second hypothesis, bearing in mind the Einsteinian Hypothesis of "perpetual motion" of electromagnetic waves [
8]
, the reason why "the photons emitted by a nebula lose energy on their journey to the observer … according to a linear law", Hubble said, can be attributed to none other than some "unknown physical effect" [
7]
.

Concluding his work, Hubble affirmed that the question of which "Einsteinian model" was correct, could not, for the moment, be decided upon and so was to remain open.

But the following year (1936) in a paper written by Hubble alone, probably in one of those moments that Einstein would have described as an "egocentric weakness", Hubble affirmed in his summary that:

"if redshifts are not velocity shifts their distribution agrees with that in an Einstein static model of the universe or with an expanding homogeneous model, with an inappreciable rate of expansion, provided spatial curvature is negligible";

whereas in his conclusion he was even more explicit:

"if redshift are not primarily due to velocity shift … the velocity-distance relation is linear, the distribution of the nebula is uniform, there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature, no restriction of the time scale … and we find ourselves in the presence of one of the principle of nature that is still unknown to us today … whereas, if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results" [
9]
.

The same concept had been mentioned a few months previously ("The Realm of the Nebulae", p. 200):

"In order to save the velocity shifts, we would be forced to conclude that the universe itself is so small that we are now observing a large fraction of the whole" [
3]
.

It is clearly upon the basis of these conclusions therefore, that the following year (1937), Nernst published his work, "On the Existence of a Stationary State in Space".

However, before moving on to Nernst's interpretation it is worth considering the following:

Note on Edwin Hubble's Scientific Suicide

The work he carried out in 1936 was obviously immediately attacked by the relativists. It was particularly attacked in 1937 by A. Eddington [
10]
and G.C. McVittie [
11]
.

In the same year Hubble answered his critics and reconfirmed the following [
12]
:

(Reply to Eddington) "Analysis of the luminosity of the galaxies enables experimental distinction between the two models of the universe … this possibility has been partially fulfilled as discrepancies have been noted in the scale that the recessive model is based upon. These discrepancies can only be eliminated through a forced interpretation of the data … The interpretation of redshifts by means of the theory of the expanding universe is so plausible and so widely current that, in making a delicate test of the theory, it is desirable to push uncertainties in the favourable direction before admitting to a discordance. Nevertheless, - and this is perhaps the significant result of my investigation - when the observational data are shifted in favour of the expanding theory as heavily as can reasonably be allowed, they still fall short of expectation".

(Reply to McVittie) "Nevertheless, the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time".

This work of Hubble's was followed by another [
13]
in 1939 where he suggested that:

"The most fundamental reference frame now available consists of the extragalactic nebulae … Regardless of their interpretation redshifts introduce systematic displacements in the spectra of distant nebulae … These systematic redshifts must be removed before the residual motions of the nebulae can be investigated. The residual motions represent combinations of the peculiar, individual motions of the nebulae and the reflection of the solar motion with respect to the system. When the residual motions of many nebulae, well distributed over the sky, are analyzed as a group, the peculiar motions, since they are presumable distributed at random in all directions, tend to cancel out, leaving only the reflection on the solar motion to emerge from the totality of the data … We conclude that the data … suggest that the sun is moving with a velocity of the order of 300 km/s in the general direction l
= 63° ,

b
= + 35° . This apex lies in the constellation of Draco".

And as far as expansion is concerned, he concludes with the following statement:

" … the results do not establish the expansion as the only possible interpretation of redshifts. Other data are available which, at the moment, seem to point in another direction."

With this final affront to the Theory of Relativity (he was practically suggesting the reintroduction of an "absolute" frame of reference and was "threatening" a redshift interpretation that was different from the relativist one), Hubble was to constitute the requirements for his own scientific suicide.

He had in fact pushed himself so far that he was forced to choose between publicly contesting the Theory of the Expanding Universe or remaining silent.

But as he was neither in possession of the data required for this purpose, and nor did he have an "alternative theory" at his fingertips, apart from the hypothesis of a "hitherto unrecognised principle of Nature", he had to keep quiet.

For eight years. Because eight years later construction of the new telescope at Monte Palomar was almost complete and finally in August, 1947 he was able to amaze his audience with the surprising statements he made in his lecture on "The 200-inch telescope and some problems it may solve" [
14]
.

He was above all to return to his stance of 1929, repeatedly emphasising that his law was "approximately linear" and no longer "clearly linear". He then went on to say that:

" … redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature … Attempt have been made to attain the necessary precision with the 100-inch, and the results appear to be significant. If they are valid, it seems likely that redshifts may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the current speculation on the structure of the Universe may require re-examination. The significant data, however, were necessarily obtained at the very limit of a single instrument … therefore the results must be accepted for the present as suggestive rather than definitive. The problem is essentially one for the 200-inch … It is well known that a rapidly receding light appears fainter than a similar, but stationary, light at the same momentary distance … the receding light appears abnormally faint … if redshifts are evidence of actual recession, the reduction of apparent brightness should become appreciable near the limits of measurement with the 100-inch and should be conspicuous near the limit of the 200-inch. At the very limits of direct photographs with the 200-inch, the factor should approach the order of 40 to 50 percent, and should be unmistakable. We may predict with confidence that the 200-inch will tell us whether the redshifts must be accepted as evidence of a rapidly expanding Universe, or attributed to some new principle of Nature. Whatever the answer may be, the result will be welcomed as another major contribution to the exploration of the Universe".

Four years later in a lecture entitled "The law of redshifts" [
15]
, Hubble supplied his first series of "attempts at a definitive formulation with the 200 inch telescope:

" … The mere fact that we observe the shifts clearly indicates that each light quantum from the nebulae reaches us with reduced energy. Regardless of the interpretation of redshifts, we must accept the loss of energy by the individual quanta … and we must correct the apparent magnitudes accordingly … These corrections I once called the 'energy effect' and, I repeat, they must be applied to the measured luminosities, regardless of the interpretation of redshifts."

And correcting the photovisual magnitudes for the energy effect only, Hubble obtained linear correlation within the uncertainties of the data, while: "the residuals were surprisingly small … it should be emphasised that the magnitudes have not been corrected for recession of the nebulae".

The introduction of the recession factor would lead to a non linear relation in the sense of an accelerated expansion: "When no recession factors are included, the law will represent approximately a linear relation between redshifts and distance."

The new research programme had only just started and at this point (8th May, 1953), "the discussion necessarily ends with a progress report, and not with a definitive solution of the problems considered" [
15]
.

But a few months later, on 28th September, 1953, Hubble died in San Marino, California; and his "antirelativist" research programme was buried with him.

So much so that a few years later Hubble's work became the butt of rough and superficial epitaphs such as the following:

"More than ten years were to pass (after the expanding hypothesis had been put forward by De Sitter) before the observations made by the American astronomer Edwin Hubble were to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the Universe was expanding" [
16]
.

"Hubble's Law. The most serious blow to the stationary state of the Universe … came from Hubble's measurements of the velocity of the galaxies … after a series of painstaking measurements, Hubble discovered that on average a galaxy recedes from us at a velocity proportional to the distance … Hubble's discovery immediately destroys the idea of a stationary, unchanging universe, Aristotelian one might say … So, as is indicated by Hubble's Law, 20 thousand million years ago the galaxies were presumeably all amassed at the same point", etc. [
17]
.

Nernst's Interpretation

Hubble made two mistakes, as has been seen.

The first one lay in choosing to research an interpretation of redshift that was exclusively within the field of Einsteinian relativity.

The second lay in the hypothesis that his "law" was "clearly linear", thus ignoring a fact that is well-known to any physicist, even an amateur one, namely that for small z values (redshift) a straight line constitutes a good "first approximation" of a logarithmic curve.

These mistake did not happen by chance.

The first was almost certainly due to the influence of Tolman, the relativistic theorist whose aid was sought by Hubble to "interpret" redshifts. Despite the results of the work he did in 1936, Hubble was never able to completely shake off Tolman's influence.

His second mistake was caused in the same way by the influence of Einsteinian relativity. A logarithmic law may be deduced from a normal "classical" effect of exponential decay of energy in photons; this, however, really does postulate the existance of the "intergalactic and interstellar mean" that is "in principle" denied by Relativity [
2]
, [
8]
.

Nernst, one the other hand, was completely free of "relativistic prejudices". Furthermore he was perfectly familiar with Eddington [
18]
and Regener's works [
19]
regarding the evaluation of "the temperatures of interstellar space" (Eddington) and of "intergalactic space" (Regener).

In 1937 he could in fact do none other than draw the following obvious conclusions [
2]
:

"The most important aspect of my observations lies in the hypothesis, already dealt with in the work I carried out in 1912, which has already been proven, namely that basically the universe is in a stationary state … Since 1921 I had emphasised, in "Structure of the World", p. 40, that in the presence of a freely expanding universe of unlimited age, interstellar temperature should be continually increasing on account of radiation; yet in reality we are certain that this temperature has remained extremely low. In order to explain this I then concluded that, 'Luminous ether … thought to be a conductor capable of assuming energy, a fact which may only be disputed with great difficulty, possesses the ability to absorb radiant energy even if only in extremely small quantities. One might imagine that this absorption would redistribute the irradiated energy over the long term, thus returning it to the zero point energy of luminous ether. It may therefore be concluded, that even in the steady state the temperature of the universe can be very low.' This concept has since met with experimental proof of considerable importance. While I was looking for experimental proof of the above hypothetical phenomenon, I came across the famous nebulae redshift and thought that it contained what I was looking for, in other words a fall in luminous quantum energy only resulting in diminished frequency, i.e. light absorption … Let us make the following simple hypothesis for the gradual disappearance of light quantum:

- d(hn
) = H (hn
) dt (1)

therefore :

ln H t

… on the basis of this simple formula, we think we have replaced the fairly unreliable theory of the exploding universe with a much simpler concept of vast importance, which also accounts for redshifts in the most distant objects … And it is highly significant that Hubble, one of the discoverers of redshifts, should consider the model of the expanding universe to be unreliable … Continuing Hubble's research with a more powerful telescope … we could on the other hand arrive at an answer to a very important question, namely according to which law the frequency of light quanta is modified. Hubble made the hypothesis of a linear relation:

t = 1.84*109

whereas my approach goes like this :

t = 1.84*109 ln

In his successive works Hubble still declared the interpretation of redshift as being a Doppler effect to be untrue. He based this on the fact that the decrease in nebulae luminosity over distance did not proceed as a Doppler effect did, but much more slowly, thus corresponding to my new interpretation. From an astronomic viewpoint, equation (1) poses precise limits on the possibility of penetrating ever greater territories with the aid of the telescope … at a distance of 1.8 thousand million light years, the energy irradiated by a luminous source is reduced by 1/3 and so on. At ever increasing distances individual sources of light can no longer be distinguished … Just as is the case with Olber's paradox, a solution to the so-called gravitational paradox can be found in equation (1) … in place of the law of gravity:

K = f

would be:

K = f exp(-)

… it is important to emphasise that we are not dealing with an arbitrary modification to the law of gravity, as (this modification) has been born out by experimental findings (redshifts, etc.) … and a third extension of equation (1) has been suggested as regards the "non-conservation" of kinetic energy:

even if this phenomenon is difficult to prove ... as gravitational field would gradually compensate for this "dimming" effect."

Then there was a paragraph on cosmic radiation:

"We should make the hypothesis, as Regener did, that the source of this radiation is the entire universe, as per my hypothesis of 1912 before this had been discovered, and following the ideas behind all of my astrophysical observation … Regener's important work that I have just quoted contains the fact that a body in the universe, absorbing cosmic radiation should heat up to 2.8°K … All the individual parts of cosmic radiation undergo upon the basis of equation (1), a redshift … of the energy available in the universe … most of it is required to keep cosmic radiation constant … this would yet again stress the fundamental importance offered by the study of cosmic radiation to the fields of physics and astrophysics."

In his final summing up he said:

"My guiding conviction has been the study of the hypothesis which claims that the universe is in a stationary state … in 1912 this hypothesis had already lead me to conclude that space must be full of cosmic radiation ... further study of my ideas will render some parts of cosmic radiation more comprehensible … As I had already forecast in 1921, redshift once more forms the basis of my theory … whereby It does not constitute a Doppler effect … this final reaffirmation of the point I wish to make can be proven, quite independently of any of my studies, by Hubble's astronomical measurements, which also exclude the hypothesis of 'exploding space', a theory which has never been included among any of my observations ... For the moment my redshift equation leads to some physical generalizations which can be deduced from observations that have not yet been completed. However, they should be borne in mind … the astrophysical observation published in my works are an attempt to create a coherent, yet physically simple concept that broadly answers all the essential questions even in quantitative terms … for the moment they do not clash with any other kinds of experiment … if any basic objections are to be made in the field of astronomical research, this is how we are to discover what the future holds in store." [
2]

His last work (1938), entitled, "The Radiation Temperature of the Universe" [
20]
was an attempt, on the basis of the 1937 theory, to calculate the density of radiant energy in intergalactic space. Nernst actually made the hypothesis that "outside" our galaxy it was "colder" than it was "inside" it: "the result is that the temperature of intergalactic radiation is about 0.75° K, i.e. about one fourth of the temperature of interstellar space radiation inside a nebula."

Well. This is a very brief summing up of Nernst's cosmology. Now let us discover what the future has brought with it.

Comparative Cosmology

Let us make a comparative study of Albert Einstein and Walther Nernst's cosmology according to which hypothesis it is based upon:

HYPOTHESES

Expanding Universe Stationary Universe

(Albert Einstein) (Walther Nernst)

1) Ether does not exist. 1) Ether does exist

2) Its electric conductivity is 2) Electric conductivity is

zero: s0 = 0 very small, but not zero:

s0¹
0

3) Electromagnetic waves 3) Electromagnetic waves

constitute an example do not constitute an

of perpetual motion. example of perpetual motion.

4) Redshift is a Doppler 4) Redshift is not a Doppler

effect. effect.

5) The Universe is expanding 5) The Universe is stationary

after an explosion which and freely extending in

took place about 20 thousand space and time.

million years ago.

6) Expansion takes place 6) Redshift-distance relation

according to the linear law: goes according to a

v = c z = H x logarithmic law whereby:

x

7) Background radiation exists 7) Background radiation exists

as a result of adiabatic cooling as a result of the electric

during expansion conductivity of ether

(Gamow, 1937: T @
6 °K) [
2]
(Nernst, 1956: T @
2.8 °K) [
21]

TESTS AND EXPERIMENTS

Expanding Universe Stationary Universe

1) Ether does not exist: 1) Ether does exist:

This is at variance with Two established physical

at least two established properties (e0 , m0) but

physical properties: thesehave not been

permittivity (e0); and measured since 1905.

permeability (m0). No evidence against this

hypothesis [
22]
.

2) Conductivity:s0 = 0 2) Conductivity s0¹
0

This has never been [s0 = 2.85 ×
10-29 (W
m)-1]

proven. Proven at macrocosmic

and microcosmic levels [
8]

3) Perpetual motion of 3) Non-existence of any

electromagnetic waves kind of perpetual motion:

This has never been proved. Has always been proved.

4) Redshift is a Doppler 4) Redshift is not a Doppler

effect : effect:

This has always been atThis has always been in accord

variance with with experimental data

experimental data (E. Hubble) (E. Hubble) .

5) Expansion: 5) Stationary State:

This has always been at This has always been in accord

variance with with experimental data

experimental data (E. Hubble) (E. Hubble) .

6) Linear law: "Over 50 6) Logarithmic Law:

years of intense study Tested and

have not enabled any 'H experimented by:

constant' to be

determined in Hubble's a) W. Nernst, 1937

law'" [
23]
; "Coward's (qualitatively)

approach" (H = 75) b) R. Monti, 1983

adopted by numerous (quantitatively)

contemporary physicists c) P. A. La Violette, 1986

[
24]
; "Hubble's linear law (qualitatively) [
25]
.

fits experimental data

even more poorly than a

cubic law, and the

optimal law is

approximately quadratic.

Even a 1.2 power law is

conspicuously better

fitting [the data] than a

linear law … The results

of the present study …

show that there is no

positive evidence for the

Hubble law in manifestly

fair galaxy samples and

that the law can be

reconciled with the data

in complete samples

only, if at all, by the

adjunction of a tissue of

ancillary hypothesis, none

of wich is capable of direct

observational substantiation" [
26]

7) Background Radiation 7) Background Radiation

Measured by Penzias Measured by Penzias

and Wilson in 1965: and Wilson in 1965:

T @
2.7 °K [
27]
. But: T @
2.7 °K [
27]
. It is

"during observation of possible to interpret the

cosmic radiation Earth's movement in

anisotropy appears, terms of the "privileged

enabling determination reference frame" of

of the earth's movement Maxwell's theory,

as in an isolated system defined as the reference

known as new ether" [28] frame whereby an

observer would measure

background radiation as

"Nevertheless it moves." isotropic .

This emphasises the Result: v @
400 km/s.

contradiction between

the possibility of

determining earth's

velocity through the

"new ether" and the

postulates of Einsteinian Relativity. [
29]

Conclusion

Historical analysis carried out so far shows that the theories of the expanding universe and the big bang did never have experimental support.

It is obvious that present claims made by Bonnor and Regge concerning the physical significance of Hubble's works are completely unfounded.

Nernst's work, on the other hand, had since 1937 suggested to carry out experimental study of linear and logarithmic law, and at the same time "to clearly bearing in mind" the implications of the hypothesis of the existence of "background" cosmic radiation; these suggestions have been ignored.

Recent observations have shown however that there is a continued and substantial lack of observational evidence supporting the relativistic cosmology.

In the years to come new experimental data, coming in particular from the Space Telescope, should enable us to decide between these two cosmological hypotheses - either the one or the other - the expanding or the stationary state will receive experimental evidence.

This paper has been published for the first time in the Proceedings of the VIII National Congress of History of Physics, Milano, 1988, p. 331.

- - - - -

Roberto A. Monti is born in Ravenna, Italy, in 1945. Graduated in General Physics in 1969 at the University of Bologna (with a dissertation in Biophysics, concerning the ribosomes structure), he was researcher from 1969 to 1972 of the Center for Macromolecular Chemistry at the same University. From 1972 since today he is Researcher of the Institute for Technology and Studies on Extraterrestrial Radiations at the Italian National Research Council in Bologna. In 1984 he was a promoter of the Andromeda Editing Society, and scientific director of the journal Seagreen. In 1992 he was Research Associate of the Philadelphia Project at the Chemistry Department, A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA; from 1993 to 1994 Research Associate of Crystal Mountain Ltd, Washington, USA; from 1994 to 1998 of Burns Developments Ltd, Vancouver, BC, Canada. His research interests vary from Stereochemistry to Astrophysics, from Nuclear Physics (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) to Foundations of Physics (General and Special Relativity). He is a worldwide known harsh critic of Relativity (between his major works on this subject: "Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis", Physics Essays, 9, 2, 1996), and as such he has promoted two international Conferences dedicated to "rational Physics": Galileo Back in Italy, I and II, Bologna, 1988, 1999.